Can the vice president be fired by the president? Is there any way to get rid of a deadbeat vice president, or are they guaranteed job security as long as they don't cheat on their taxes or otherwise go through the whole impeachment thing?

And by the way, I think this may be my first DC thread ever. Sorry it's on such a banal topic.

go bo

03-23-2008, 05:46 PM

It's been too long since 9th grade social studies.

Can the vice president be fired by the president? Is there any way to get rid of a deadbeat vice president, or are they guaranteed job security as long as they don't cheat on their taxes or otherwise go through the whole impeachment thing?

And by the way, I think this may be my first DC thread ever. Sorry it's on such a banal topic.fired? no...

impeached and convicted, that works (well, almost)...

afaik, the only way to get rid of a vp is to ask for her resignation, but i don't know if that's ever been done...

banyon

03-23-2008, 05:49 PM

fired? no...

impeached and convicted, that works (well, almost)...

afaik, the only way to get rid of a vp is to ask for her resignation, but i don't know if that's ever been done...

Agnew probably was, but we lost the tape.

Rain Man

03-23-2008, 05:57 PM

I guess he/she/it is technically an elected official, so that makes sense. It strikes me as funny, though, that we have to elect the president and vice-president as a team. In that sense, one wonders if the vice-president is really elected after all, or if he/she/it is merely a coattail rider.

patteeu

03-23-2008, 06:09 PM

I don't know how we started the tradition of electing a president and a vp as a team. The first vice presidents were the guys who got the second most electoral votes in the contest for president iirc.

BucEyedPea

03-23-2008, 06:13 PM

I guess he/she/it is technically an elected official, so that makes sense. It strikes me as funny, though, that we have to elect the president and vice-president as a team. In that sense, one wonders if the vice-president is really elected after all, or if he/she/it is merely a coattail rider.

Well it's pretty much a do-less job. I know we should all covet our senior's job but this position requires your senior's death. VP does break ties in the senate though. ( and in Bush's case he formulates fp).

BTW, I think a president can dump a VP. I'm just not certain of that. And I'm too lazy to google.

banyon

03-23-2008, 06:18 PM

I don't know how we started the tradition of electing a president and a vp as a team. The first vice presidents were the guys who got the second most electoral votes in the contest for president iirc.

Really?

Really?

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Proposed: 1803 (after Burr and Jefferson were close)

patteeu

03-23-2008, 06:25 PM

Really?

Really?

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Proposed: 1803 (after Burr and Jefferson were close)

Well, knock me over with a feather. I don't have any idea what the 11th Amendment is either, I'm sorry to admit.

Rain Man

03-23-2008, 06:29 PM

Proposed: 1803 (after Burr and Jefferson were close)

Doesn't this mean that something different was in place earlier, though? I thought I recalled the same thing patteeu recalled.

patteeu

03-23-2008, 06:31 PM

Doesn't this mean that something different was in place earlier, though? I thought I recalled the same thing patteeu recalled.

The 12th Amendment must be a remedy for the original system that turned out to have fatal flaws, literally. Is this why Burr and Hamilton fought a duel?

Edit: After looking it up, I see it wasn't directly related, but was a part of the longstanding enmity between the two men.

BucEyedPea

03-23-2008, 06:31 PM

Doesn't this mean that something different was in place earlier, though? I thought I recalled the same thing patteeu recalled.

Yes there was something different earlier as Pat showed.
It was still pretty early that it got changed, iirc.

banyon

03-23-2008, 06:34 PM

Doesn't this mean that something different was in place earlier, though? I thought I recalled the same thing patteeu recalled.

Yers, absolutely. Before the VP was exactly what patteeu and you remember, the guy with the 2nd most votes got to be VP.

Rain Man

03-23-2008, 06:35 PM

The 12th Amendment must be a remedy for the original system that turned out to have fatal flaws, literally. Is this why Burr and Hamilton fought a duel?

Edit: After looking it up, I see it wasn't directly related, but was a part of the longstanding enmity between the two men.

Why did they duel, anyway? I don't remember. I bet it was over a girl.

banyon

03-23-2008, 06:36 PM

Well, knock me over with a feather. I don't have any idea what the 11th Amendment is either, I'm sorry to admit.

The 11th Amendment keeps you from suing the state of Kansas (for money).

patteeu

03-23-2008, 06:40 PM

Why did they duel, anyway? I don't remember. I bet it was over a girl.

Pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel)

Ultimately it was because Burr felt that Hamilton defamed him during Burr's run for NY Governor in 1804, but there was bad blood going back to the election of Jefferson as president and Burr as vice president. The election ended up in the house of representatives and Hamilton, a Federalist, argued for picking Jefferson over Burr (both Republicans) because he didn't think Jefferson was as "dangerous" for some reason.

patteeu

03-23-2008, 06:43 PM

The 11th Amendment keeps you from suing the state of Kansas (for money).

We ought to repeal that one.

Rain Man

03-23-2008, 06:44 PM

The 11th Amendment keeps you from suing the state of Kansas (for money).

How did the founding fathers know about Kansas? Man, those guys really had foresight.

BucEyedPea

03-23-2008, 06:44 PM

Pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel)
Ultimately it was because Burr felt that Hamilton defamed him during Burr's run for NY Governor in 1804, but there was bad blood going back to the election of Jefferson as president and Burr as vice president. The election ended up in the house of representatives and Hamilton, a Federalist, argued for picking Jefferson over Burr (both Republicans) because he didn't think Jefferson was as "dangerous" for some reason.

Guess Monty Python was right. There's always a bright side to anything sad.
Further, Hamilton's untimely death would fatally weaken the fledgling remnants of the Federalists which, following the death of George Washington (1732-1799) five years earlier, were left without a strong leader.

BucEyedPea

03-23-2008, 06:45 PM

We ought to repeal that one.

ROFL:D

Rain Man

03-23-2008, 06:45 PM

Pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel)

Ultimately it was because Burr felt that Hamilton defamed him during Burr's run for NY Governor in 1804, but there was bad blood going back to the election of Jefferson as president and Burr as vice president. The election ended up in the house of representatives and Hamilton, a Federalist, argued for picking Jefferson over Burr (both Republicans) because he didn't think Jefferson was as "dangerous" for some reason.

I guess he was right, in a sense.

patteeu

03-23-2008, 06:50 PM

I guess he was right, in a sense.

LMAO yes he was.

Amnorix

03-23-2008, 07:35 PM

Pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel)

Ultimately it was because Burr felt that Hamilton defamed him during Burr's run for NY Governor in 1804, but there was bad blood going back to the election of Jefferson as president and Burr as vice president. The election ended up in the house of representatives and Hamilton, a Federalist, argued for picking Jefferson over Burr (both Republicans) because he didn't think Jefferson was as "dangerous" for some reason.

The bad blood predated these events by quite a ways. Both Hamilton and Burr were among the foremost lawyers and politicians in New York, and were bitter rivals going back for years.

Hamilton wrote a letter to a correspondent in 1792 regarding Burr after a disputed election for the governorship of New York (each backed a different candidate) stating:

"I fear the other gentleman [i.e., Burr] is unprincipled both as a public and private man. When the constitution was in deliberation. . . his conduct was equivocal. . . . In fact, I take it he is for or against nothing but as suits his interest or ambition. He is determiend, as i conceive to make his way to be the hea dof the popular party and to climb. . . to the highest honors of the state and as much higher as circumstances may permit . . . I am mistaken if it is not his object to play the game of confusion and I feel it a religious duty to oppose his career."

Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow, pg. 422.

Amnorix

03-23-2008, 07:37 PM

Guess Monty Python was right. There's always a bright side to anything sad.

Truly vile. Alexander Hamilton did more for this country, having come here in poverty from a pathetic backwater of a British island, than 99.99999% of Americans before or since have ever dreamed of doing.

You might as well insult Washington while you're at it, since Washington was ever Hamilton's patron and sponsored his entire career.

jettio

03-23-2008, 08:10 PM

The bad blood predated these events by quite a ways. Both Hamilton and Burr were among the foremost lawyers and politicians in New York, and were bitter rivals going back for years.

Hamilton wrote a letter to a correspondent in 1792 regarding Burr after a disputed election for the governorship of New York (each backed a different candidate) stating:

"I fear the other gentleman [i.e., Burr] is unprincipled both as a public and private man. When the constitution was in deliberation. . . his conduct was equivocal. . . . In fact, I take it he is for or against nothing but as suits his interest or ambition. He is determiend, as i conceive to make his way to be the hea dof the popular party and to climb. . . to the highest honors of the state and as much higher as circumstances may permit . . . I am mistaken if it is not his object to play the game of confusion and I feel it a religious duty to oppose his career."

Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow, pg. 422.

The lesson we can learn from that is that Mitt Romney may just snap and shoot somebody one day.